2
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ and $S$ be two commutative rings with unity. Prove that $R\times S$ is NOT an integral domain.

This is the best I could think of so far, please give me a push in the right direction and correct me.

It suffices to show that $R\times S$ has zero-divisors

Therefore, let $a$ be an element of $R$ and $b$ be an element of $S$, thus $R\times S$ has elements of the form $(a,b)$.

Consider the elements $A=(a,0)$ and $B=(0,b)$, such that $a$ does not equal zero and $b$ does not equal zero. Then $AB = 0$. Therefore $R\times S$ has zero divisors.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Your argument is correct, but what is your question? $\endgroup$ – Crostul May 11 '15 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ the question was proving that R+S is not an integral domain? I wanted to know if my proof and logic was correct $\endgroup$ – B ry May 11 '15 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ Your argument is correct then. $\endgroup$ – jgon May 11 '15 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Bry If you bothered to use the search function, you would have found confirmation at a question entitled "Prove R×R is NOT an integral domain." $\endgroup$ – rschwieb May 11 '15 at 19:04
  • $\begingroup$ I used it and I guess I didn't realize RxR is the same as external direct product $\endgroup$ – B ry May 11 '15 at 19:25
3
$\begingroup$

Your argument here is perfectly correct, as others have indicated.

It would help the clarity of your proof (and, on a fairly pedantic level, would make your proof more correct) if you chose specific non-zero elements $a,b$. In particular, we could take $a = 1_R$ and $b = 1_S$.

This way, we could always say that we're explicitly using the fact that a ring with unity has both a $1$ and a $0$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, $1_R$ and $1_S$ are the only elements which we know to exist and be $\ne 0$ in the given rings $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen May 11 '15 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ Awesome, thank you for helping me! $\endgroup$ – B ry May 11 '15 at 18:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sorry to be pedantic, but I don't think $1 \not= 0$ is usually taken as one of the ring axioms. For once, Wikipedia bears me out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_ring $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan May 11 '15 at 21:16
0
$\begingroup$

yes your answer is indeed correct take two elements that are not zero than show that their product is zero.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.